W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2009

RE: Versioning and HTML

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:29:48 -0700
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D12127075745E648BBC075EF46983E1744EA00B338@TK5-EXMBX-W603v.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> The only way out of this would be for EVERY browser to very carefully
>> only ship "proprietary-marked" (a la CSS' vendor extensions) versions of
>> APIs/elements until the standard moves OUT of CR, and then add support
>> for the standard naming and deprecate their proprietary-marked versions
>> over time.
>Or at least, to do so with features that don't have obvious ways to be
>updated without needing version syntax. Why is that a problem?

I didn't say it was - but aside from CSS, that's not what is happening.  Actually, there is the problem that web developers would have to abstract their code to point to the mostly-interoperable implementations of a feature, until that feature moved out of CR - you shouldn't use <canvas> today, then, you should use <webkit-canvas>, <moz-canvas>, etc.  We've had this question internally - e.g. for rounded border corners, should IE bother doing -ms-border-radius, or just skip straight to border-radius?

I'm not against the above as a process, you understand - I'm just pointing out that this isn't the way that vendors are doing things today, outside of CSS.

>In the case of the spec changing while there is already an implementation,
>it's not like the spec is going to have BOTH versions defined, and it's
>not like other browsers are going to want to impement BOTH versions.

It sort of depends what third-party applications are built on that browser-specific implementation, I expect.  Sort of like if GMail is built on Safari's SQL store support, and the spec changes to abstract that more.  What should the spec do, in this case?

Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 16:28:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:01 UTC